Jump to content

IcemanFBW

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About IcemanFBW

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

IcemanFBW's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare

Recent Badges

118

Reputation

  1. They are running most of their code outside of the simulator, with an external program. The marketplace doesn't permit this, as they need compiled gauges to be in WASM (and therefore sandboxed), for the purposes of security and Xbox compatibility.
  2. Had this issue as well. Here are the steps to recreate, if it helps: Spawn on runway 20 at KHVN Set up aircraft as normal and take off. Perform a normal circuit, and on the downwind leg back to RW20. select the RNAV RW20 approach. At this point, the FMC and all avionics should freeze for the remainder of the flight
  3. Noticed something specific with regards to performance: when selecting a departure/arrival/approach in the FMC, there is a noticeable frame drop (5-10 FPS) when some procedures are selected, but it returns to normal once the procedure is executed. Also had a unique situation (I believe due to a WASM exception): all avionics and switch/button functionality stopped working when I selected the RNAV Runway 20 approach at KHVN during flight.
  4. Since we don't have much WASM code at the moment, we're only running into compile times of around a minute or two on initial installation of the A32NX, but one idea that has been floated around our team (especially as we add more compiled code) is to change the loading screen description to warn users of extended loading times during initial compilation. Might be an idea others might be interested in adopting until Asobo adds a way to provide visual feedback to the user on this. Basically replacing this text in an aircraft:
  5. My sincerest apologies for this situation - it was a couple members of our team who exercised rather poor judgement, and they have been spoken to. I assure you this won't happen again. We have the highest respect for your team and products, and like everyone else here, are eagerly anticipating the CRJ.
  6. Although I don't use the default MSFS ATC myself, I wonder whether the CRJ will make full use of it, considering it currently doesn't load flight plans created from the main menu. I know the Working Title CJ4 also bypasses the main menu flight plan by default, and feeds a dumbed-down version of its flight plan back to the sim for ATC to use, since they have their own custom flight plan manager code (the default Asobo flight plan manager leaves a lot to be desired).
  7. Not necessarily true. If done correctly, JS is on par with WASM in terms of performance. Aside from us, Working Title, and the other default Asobo planes, practically everyone else uses C++ simply because that's been the dominant tech stack in MS-based flight simulators for a while (and everyone has experience with it), and it's able to be compiled (necessary for payware planes). The only downside of this is there is currently no networking functionality available through WASM gauges (at least to my knowledge), so if you want to make any sort of network requests (for example, getting a simbrief flight plan, doing CPDLC, or retrieving Navigraph charts), that currently needs to be done through HTML/JavaScript gauges, whose source will always be viewable. Not an option for payware aircraft.
  8. They just changed some parameters related to flaps/slats and ground effect behavior. Definitely threw us off, but nothing too big.
  9. Just want to clarify something here (and hopefully not derail the thread - please don't reply to this comment, and instead keep the thread on-topic about the Aerosoft A320). Our current limitation with making changes to the model is based on the fact that Asobo has a custom GLTF specification that we needed to write a custom Blender importer & exporter for - which is nearly completed. From my understanding (I will update this comment if I receive updated information), the only scenario where would be any "legal" challenges would be if the changed model is integrated in any official context - such as the in-game marketplace's upcoming free section, as announced by Jorg in the last developer Q&A. In that case, I believe Airbus would need to approve any model changes per the terms of their licensing.
  10. Yep, currently the only way to accomplish network communication, as far as I know, is through JavaScript fetch requests through HTML gauges (which is what we currently do). But based on Mathijs's comments on the great performance of the CRJ running solely with WASM gauges, that definitely seems the way to go in the long run. Hopefully proper in-sim weather (and terrain) SDK support comes soon. Has there been any news regarding some SDK issues - for example the corrupted pContext parameter in SimConnect_CallDispatch? I'm curious as to whether those are impacting the progress of any other third-party developers.
×
×
  • Create New...